God is redundant. A Theory

  • Thread starter Sintwar
  • Start date
  • #26
"Existence. The essence of all that is, was and shall be. Existence is the purest form of any force, because without it, nothing would exist. Including existence its self." - Sintwar


Prove that for me... how can you make such a claim with no solid graound to stand on?
 
  • #27
Theists, and atheists are both dogmatic, as long as they're full of themselves. Just keep an open mind, when you look at others in blame, you don't make a comfortable home for yourself. I realize that all of us deal with these feelings, what I do is try to let myself relax and back up my viewpoint, over and over and over... maybe if I back up far enough, I can see more of the picture... Both theism and atheism are roads, but egnosticism is an open plane... but I digress, I shouldn't make such a rash statement. I apologize for any incoherence, I'm not perfect. I could be described as on the fence, but from this vantage point, I see both theists and atheists running around in circles. Which one wants to be right the most? whichever one that is is not the one I would affilliate myself with.
 
  • #28
"Not to mention the history of the theistic ways. Brutality to force people to believe in something they don't. Amazing things that supposedly happened in front of everyone a mere few thousand years ago, but all of the sudden technology explodes, TV, radio and the internet are born, and BAM. all of the amazing miracles stop. coincidence?" - Sintwar

Ya, thats what can happen when people take their beliefs to the limit... you must've forgotten about WW2, there were more people killed in that war than all of the crusades times 10. Was the war started by theists, or by atheists? Do you agree with the philosophy of Eugenics? That philosophy (in the dogma of atheism) was taken to it's limit by Hilter and Stalin, two of the most evil (dare I use the word) atheists in history (it's just my opinion). They really wanted to be right, but it turned out that thier philosophy was a little bit to "cruel" in the eyes of the world (my opinion again).

Hows about we all say what we really believe about the universe and ourselves, rather than say what we believe to be true about the viewpoints held by members of our species? What about respect for each other rather than being at each other's throats because we can't understand each other? Why do we catagorize viewpoints the way we do? Stereotyping leads to misunderstanding. I can say whatever about some ideal viewpoint that I'd like to bash and try to disprove, but whose to say that anybody on Earth actually fits the exact stereotype I've created in my persuit to point my finger and pass blame to someone else? When I start off on a rant about "these people think this..." all I'm really doing is trying to distract you from finding my own faults.
 
  • #29
"Because of this, I have a theory that the force of existence is infinite. This theory is based on the fact that existence could not exist without existence." - Sintwar

I'm sorry, but I just had to post this quote...

Is it a fact that existance can't exist without the existstance of existance? hmm,

existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existance... see my point?

It's okay Sintwar, I like you. You're entertaining. I'm sorry for poking fun at your quote, but I do so in respect because I find it aestetically pleasing. It's just my way of saying "You're alright kid!!" Please don't take it negatively.
 
  • #30
"what if i dont want to live more than 80? did anyone bother asking about my opinion? who does god think he is that i would live eternally??" - Cronxeh

I know what you mean, I never signed any contract or anything, so why am I asked to comply? why would god create life in order to punnish it eternally? It's hard to answer, but then ask yourself, how are people in the Bush administration able to get away with the things they do if god exists? If god exists, then why does he let all these paranoid, eccentric knowitalls (similar to hitler and stallin) run the world? well, if you believe in free will, then this problem goes away. You understand that they all brought themselves into that position, and THAT is why there is a hell. There must be some way to provide justice from all the injustice in the world (injustice being caused by people choosing to take advantage of other people). I'm not trying to prove anything one way or the other, just offer both viewpoints on this subject in a complimentary way. btw, sorry for so many posts in a row, I'm a very inconclusive man, so I tend to add on and on. Also, I don't really have any social life to speak of...
 
  • #31
"There is no true happiness for the theist. There is only hatred, fear, war, violence, slavery and judgement." - Sintwar

Look whoose talking!!! I again apologize but your quote sounds a lot like the attitude best described in this quote: "I hate people who hate people". Well then you've backed yourself into a corner and you're forced to hate yourself... if you regard yourself as a person. Come on mang? drop the baggage and free yourself. Becaue you've been judging others this whole time.

"it's okay if you had a bad childhood, we all did" - Scott Thompson from the Kids in the hall

"People you hate will get their hooks into you
They'll pull you down
You'll frown
They'll tar you and drag you through town
But you still don't like to leave before the end of the movie
No you still don't like to leave before the end of the show
People you hate will get their hooks into you
They'll pull you down
You'll frown
They'll tar you and drag you through town
But you still don't like to leave before the end of the movie
No you still don't like to leave before the end of the show" - Cake (the band)
 
  • #32
I like the discussion, but I really think we should tone down the slamming of peoples beliefs. The theists aren't going to back from their position, and the atheists aren't either. We should discuss the topic in an informative, and not based solely on opinions.

There I said it, now here is something I thought of earlier it was said Existence-God-everything else. Is it possible for existance to be God(enter your god here)? As a human being I am merely a very complex machine. I Have organic compounds, proteins, and Amino acids combined to make my body and brain. The brain then fires elctrical impulses from neuron to nueron, many synapses along the way. In this mess an "Intelligent thought" is created.

How do I know, though, that I am the only person who isn't a "machine", only capable of doing prethought, preplanned, programs when encountered with certain situations? How do I know I'm not?

What I am trying to say is, With all of the elements, and molecules in the Universe is it possible that "Existence" itself can have "intelligent" thoughts? Then if "Existence" had an infinite amount of power it could easily change itself and laws of physics.

Is what I'm saying Anywhere close, or should I back off of the Mountain Dews?
 
  • #33
Existance itself is conscious? I don't know, sounds kinda neat. It would work well in a poem or something... do thoughts exist? I would say yes, thoughts are part of existance even though they doen't take up space or time in the physical world. If you define the space that thoughts exist within as "thought space" or "trancendance", then existance is all thought at once, so no existance couldn't have thoughts because it would be aware of all thoughts at once and there would be no need for time to construct a "stream of consciousness". Now heres the opposite viewpoint: Since you define existance as all powerful, then why would existance have any limitations? Existance is a pickle.
 
  • #34
11
0
DeepThunker said:
I like the discussion, but I really think we should tone down the slamming of peoples beliefs. The theists aren't going to back from their position, and the atheists aren't either. We should discuss the topic in an informative, and not based solely on opinions.
I agree with DeepThunker. I did not start this thread with the intention to feed the fire of the never ending theist/atheist struggle.
Although I know all too well how easily a topic like this one can veer into that direction.

Jonny_trigonometry said:
Prove that for me... how can you make such a claim with no solid graound to stand on?
That is why I called it a theory.
That is also why I call "god" a theory. And in my theory, god is a redundant theory.


Jonny_trigonometry said:
existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence....
I love it! Here I have simplified it for you in C#:

for(existence=i;existence==i;i=i){
existence=i;
}
 
  • #35
In order for your "theory" as a whole to be taken seriously, you must back it up with facts, not other "theories". So if you really want to make the claim that what you have is a theory, you must explain:

"Existence. The essence of all that is, was and shall be. Existence is the purest form of any force, because without it, nothing would exist. Including existence its self."

in terms of facts. You can't just rely on the individual you're talking with to overlook your lack of proof as easily as you do. When you define any word with that same word, the word no longer has any meaning.

For example, I'll prove that eating is redundant. Food is food, and since it is, food is nothing else other than food, without food there is no eating, so since food must have come first, there is no need to eat it.

The above "theory" uses the same allowances you give to your reasoning. Now suppose I better defined food based entirely on facts, the overall theory suggests that there is no reason to eat food. Suppose that were actually true... Am I going to give up experiancing something that I enjoy simply because it makes no logical sense? of course that question is rhetorical because different people will answer differently accoarding to thier liking. So even if god is redundant, that doesn't offer anything of practical use. If a theory offers no practical use, or experimantability, there is no use for it. Ultimately, if you did reformulate your "theory" to be based entirely on facts, we would be able to verify it with an experiment or two.
 
  • #36
btw, here is the program that you probably meant to write in C, unless of course you were really only testing me to see if I would correct you. In that case, your program is correct, as you have defined it to work in the "C#" programming language, which doesn't exist yet, and is entirely your creation.

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
int n;
for(n=1;n==1;printf("existance can't exist without "))
;
}
 
  • #37
1,029
1
Sintwar said:
Proof is proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. Proof cannot be dis-proven if it has truly been proven. Proof is fact not opinion as you would have it. Yes if something has been proven and I am denying it, then I am an idiot. As well as anyone else denying it. Until that moment, anyone claiming that something is fact without proof is an idiot.
This seems to beg the question. You haven't explained what proof is and why that is the best form of proof. You seem to be making assumptions that proof has to be objective or inter-subjective. Does this mean that a person cannot "prove to themselves" anything? As I said before, many people have all the proof they need. The fact that they cannot prove it to you is not their concern. The fact that you are claiming "proof" requires objective verification makes certain assumptions about reality. As I said before(and you didn't respond), your own consciousness cannot be objectively proven yet I'm sure you won't deny that you are conscious. Why are you not an idiot for believing in something that you cannot prove to others, like your own consciousness?

The idea of god is also a theory, and one with an extremely poor foundation of evidence if I do say so myself.
It very well may have an extremely poor foundation of evidence. But that fact has not been shown in this post. This post makes assumptions that the world is a physicalist world and follows physicalist rules. I see no good reason to accept these assumptions over any other. Even though I have pointed out at least one example of something that does not fit those rules, that has not stopped you from clinging to this philosophy and making these assumptions.


I agree. It is pathetic. In fact it makes me sick to know that I am surrounded by as many mindless zombies as I am.
I actually did not post in this thread because of your view. Your view is a valid one to have if it can be effectively argued. I did post here because of the attitude I saw in statements like the one above. This just isn't a healthy attitude if you wish to remain objective in the philosophy forum. I would consider what I said earlier very carefully. Whenever I find myself calling the rest of the world idiots because they disagree with me, I should take pause because there is probably something that I do not understand.

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/010544.html [Broken]
Of course I am sure you will say that by me believing in this, (or anything I read for that matter), I am just as bad as a theist believing in religious writings. Fair enough. But I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that if I were to perform the experiments that I read about in scientific writings, I would find just about every word of it to be true.
I followed the link and didn't see anything to read, but I can assure you that if they are claiming that something comes from nothing, then they aren't using the same definition of nothing that gets used in the philosophy forum. Most people here would claim that their "nothing" is actually something and so their conclusion is actually "something comes from something". No one would disagree with that. There are lots of threads on this topic here. I posted one below to start with.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=64806

If this post is "closed minded", then I would love to see you on a theist forum. Pick one. Any one. You will have a field day.
I'm sure that's correct. But I'm posting in this thread right now.

There is nothing closed minded about my post, with perhaps the exception of the "lazy, stubborn, and ignorant" part. :uhh: Yes I am very "closed minded" when it comes to people being brainwashed, and mindlessly accepting things to be fact, and actually killing people over it when they can't even prove it!

Yes. I am closed minded about that. I am also anti theist, and have been labeled by friends and family to be an "Atheist Extremist".
It isn't necessarily closed minded to have any particular view. But when you call everyone else "brainwashed" because they don't have your view and you haven't done a sufficient job arguing why your assumptions are superior, this is clearly close minded.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Kirk Gregory Czuhai said:
http://www.altelco.net/~churches/ProofOfGod.htm [Broken]
the above link if you read it all will lead you to some interesting scientific measurements about the Earth that coincidence are less than the the chance
of winning the lottery of having occured in forming the Earth to be habitable for
life as we know it as far as scientific measurements are concerned.
You know, this is a pretty terrible argument. Many people have managed to win the lottery and no one claims that it took a miracle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
1,029
1
loseyourname said:
You know, this is a pretty terrible argument. Many people have managed to win the lottery and no one claims that it took a miracle.
This of course makes the assumption that the conditions for life have a 100% chance of existing somewhere in the universe.

While the odds of a single person winning the lottery may be 1 in 70,000,000. The odds of someone eventually winning the lottery is 100%.

Your analogy is probably fair though.
 
  • #40
11
0
Jonny_trigonometry said:
For example, I'll prove that eating is redundant. Food is food, and since it is, food is nothing else other than food, without food there is no eating, so since food must have come first, there is no need to eat it.
Food is food because we make it food. Anything could be considered "food" as long as something exists to "eat" it. This entire planet could be called "food" if there were a giant planet eating dragon flying around in space. And hey who am I to say that there isn't? I have just never seen evidence that there is one. By our definition of "food" anyway. Coal is "food" for fire, but I think you would be hard pressed to attempt to eat some coal.

The problem with your statement is that in order for food to be considered food, there must be something in existence to eat it. Of course how could something that depends on eating in order to exist, exist without something to eat? Evolution. <-- "hypothesis" Perhaps some primitive form of life that did not need food to exist started somehow eating things for whatever reason, and ultimately over billions of years became dependant on it.

The main thing here is that "food" in any form would not exist without existence. Could I be wrong? Maybe existence would not exist without food! But then again, if food existed in order to create existence, it would still already exist, and therefor, it exists because existence exists. Without existence, food could not exist. NOTHING can --->"EXIST"<--- without existence. At least not by our definition of existence.

Perhaps I should change my words from "theory" to "hypothesis".
As I mentioned before I am no science guru. Whatever!



Fliption said:
This seems to beg the question. You haven't explained what proof is and why that is the best form of proof. You seem to be making assumptions that proof has to be objective or inter-subjective. Does this mean that a person cannot "prove to themselves" anything? As I said before, many people have all the proof they need. The fact that they cannot prove it to you is not their concern. The fact that you are claiming "proof" requires objective verification makes certain assumptions about reality. As I said before(and you didn't respond), your own consciousness cannot be objectively proven yet I'm sure you won't deny that you are conscious. Why are you not an idiot for believing in something that you cannot prove to others, like your own consciousness?
To make it very simple. I read this in a book "The Atheists debators handbook", so most of these are not my words.
If you were to take me to court, claiming that I am in breech of a contract, you will need to produce this so called contract in order to prove that I did in fact sign it and that I am breeching that contract. If you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this contract exists, and it has my signiture, your claim is worthless.

You can convince anyone you want that this contract exists. Hell you could convince the whole world. But without that contract, you have no case.





Jonny_trigonometry said:
btw, here is the program that you probably meant to write in C, unless of course you were really only testing me to see if I would correct you. In that case, your program is correct, as you have defined it to work in the "C#" programming language, which doesn't exist yet, and is entirely your creation.

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
int n;
for(n=1;n==1;printf("existance can't exist without "))
;
}
No, I wrote it in C# (See Sharp). A child of C. C# .Net to be exact.

And I sure hope it already exists, I get payed to code it 5 days a week. :/

for(existence=i;existence==i;i=i){
existence=i;
}

really I should have declared i first, but ultimately in this example existence=i and i=existence.

The point was really just to make an infinite loop. Although It can't realy be infinite as it had a beginning. Then again so does "existance can't exist without existance can't exist without..."

probably should have been more like this: (if I really wanted to make it functional), and adding your string to it:

int i;
int existence=0;
string print;
for(i=existence;existence==i;i++){
print += "existance can't exist without ";
}

of course if I really wanted to optimize the server load, I would use a string builder Vs. += but for the sake of keeping it short, and because it is infinite and will ultimately crash anyway, += will do.
 
  • #41
"Food is food because we make it food." - Sintwar

yes! and we make the definition of existance also. It doesn't make itself.

"The main thing here is that "food" in any form would not exist without existence.... Without existence, food could not exist." - Sintwar


You use the word "existence" very often, to describe many different things. At some points it can be taken to mean "space-time" or "the universe" other times it could be taken to mean "a state of being". You are still saying the same thing you said at the beginning, that existence came first. One must be alive in order to understand what existence is, so why didn't "being alive" come first? I think you may even agree with that statement because you probably define existence as being alive, because you use the word "existence" synonymously with "a state of being". You just say that food can't exist without existence, and you leave it there. If you then refuse to change your arguments, then you are no different then a Theist (ouch! the people you hate). They would just say "Food can't exist without God", and leave it there. God to a Theist is existence to you. You both make unfalsifiable claims in the eyes of objective proof. I won't note you as a typical atheist though, I've noticed they are usually really nice people because to them, this moment on Earth is all there is so they make lemonade out of lemons.

"The fact that you are claiming "proof" requires objective verification makes certain assumptions about reality. As I said before(and you didn't respond), your own consciousness cannot be objectively proven yet I'm sure you won't deny that you are conscious." -Fliption

he's got a point Sintwar, you can't have your cake and eat it too. This has nothing to do with a "contract", it has to do with the fact that you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
 
  • #42
809
0
If we break proof down into its foundations, the axioms... then where is our proof that those axioms are true? We have to accept some things on faith. If you choose to accept your axiom as: because god has not stood next to me, levitated a car, transported me to mars and drank a beer with his mind, then god does not exist... then so be it. But if that actually happened to you and you came on this forum and stated it, I wouldn't believe you for a second. I cannot accept that on faith. You may not like the word faith, but I think its an appropriate word for something in between proof and not-proof.


It seems you have this assumption that in order for something to exist it must be proven. So proof gives means to existance.
That is to say:

If we have proof of god, then god exists.

Which is the same thing as saying:
If we have (the existance of)proof of god, then god exists.

Which is the same thing as saying:
If we have ((the existance of)the existance of)proof of god, then god exists.

Which is the same thing as saying:
Ok, I hope you get my point...

If we NEED proof for something to exist, then we need proof of that proof in order for the proof to exist. It's circular reasoning, and it goes nowhere.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
809
0
By the way, with regards to:

int i;
int existence=0;
string print;
for(i=existence;existence==i;i++){
print += "existance can't exist without ";
}

What happens when the allocated space for the spring overflows because there is no more memory left for your "existance can't exist without " print command.

Or are you saying existance is cyclic, since the integer will overflow at some point and start over also?

Better yet, lets forget all the little nuances and say that all you are expressing with the code is that existance just occurs, it will continue to occur, it is an "endless loop" if you will. Well how can we prove that the loop is actually running if we cannot examine it infinitely? Sure we can say its running in a interval of time, but that interval is not infinite... so should we just accept that the loop will run forever?
 
  • #44
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Fliption said:
This of course makes the assumption that the conditions for life have a 100% chance of existing somewhere in the universe.

While the odds of a single person winning the lottery may be 1 in 70,000,000. The odds of someone eventually winning the lottery is 100%.

Your analogy is probably fair though.
I was thinking more along these lines:

Let us say there are exactly 1 million possible worlds (just for the sake of helping us conceptualize). Which world becomes an actual world is purely a matter of chance and depends on the way in which physical constants network to create natural laws. Each world has an equal probability of occuring. For the sake of argument, let's just that 25 of these possible worlds are constructed such that the evolution of intelligent life can take place in them. Sure, because of that, it's more probable that a universe will exist that cannot support intelligent life - in fact, it is quite a bit more probable. However, the probability of any given possible world becoming an actual world is equal. To bring it back to the lottery analogy, let's say each ticket has a 1 in 1 million chance of being the winning ticket. Only 25 ticket-holders are between the ages of 27 and 29. In fact, the probability of any person within any given three-year age span eligible to play the lottery winning is 25 in 1 million. Would we be surprised to find that a 28 year-old wins? What about a 35 year-old?

That's the thing. Any possible world has an equally low a priori probability of being an actual world. There is no more reason to be surprised that our world is the one that exists than there would be over the existence of any possible world, whether or not it could support intelligent life.
 
  • #45
1,515
0
You seem to be suggesting that the universe exists as a superposition of states, each actualised by an act of sentient observation. John Wheeler uses this argument to suggest that consciousness is required in order to actualise probable states of the universe, and is thus required to be in existence at t=0 in all universes. This is not a strong argument for the non-existence of God.

I know nothing about programming languages but the infinite loop that arises in programming for existence, as demonstrated above, is dispensed with in the logical calculus of George Spencer-Brown, who uses imaginary values to solve the problem. Thus he presents his calculus as a mathematical model of how form arises from formlessness in all universes. Not as an act of God, but as the natural outcome of the fundamental existence of a 'causeless cause', aka the Void, the Tao, emptiness etc., as suggested by Lao-tsu, Chuang Tsu, the Buddha, Richard Gere, Schrodinger and the rest.

The God issue is a mess in my opinion. It results from a naturalisation or objectification of God as a concept, which began with the early Greek philosophers and culminates in the work of people like Ayn Rand and Dan Dennett, and in the sort of shallow happy-clappy Christianity that has evolved in recent times. It is often forgotten, for instance, that in Sufism, which is equivalent to Taoism, Buddhism and the Christian mystics in its cosmology, great efforts are made to make it crystal clear that Allah is not God, and that to think of Allah as God is is to make a serious and very misleading mistake. Similarly there is a profound difference between the God of TV evangalists and the 'Godhead' of Evagrios, Merton or Meister Eckhart.

To argue that the God of modern Christianity does not exist is to pick on an easy target. It is not hard to show that this notion of God is incoherent and requires the possibility of divine miracles in order to overcome its internal contradictions. The question is, is there a inevitable gap in all our consistent accounts of cosmogenesis, if so is there something in it, and if so what might it be, assuming it needs to be something consistent with physics. To the first I'd say yes, to the second yes and no, depending on how you look at it, and to the last I'd agree with Spencer-Brown.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
11
0
I use the word existence with abundance because if you really boil it down, nothing can exist without existence.

You can argue that to the death, but it is a fact. It is a fact because the moment that anything comes into existence (no matter what form of existence it is), it exists.

I do not hold "existence" to only physical forms of existence. For example. I am imagining 5 billion dollars in my bank account right now. It is a nice thought, and although it is not physical reality, the thought of it exists in my mind. And now that I have said it to you, and you are reading it, it now exists in your mind.

In this sense, yes god does very much exist. god exists in the mind of just about every single living human being on this planet.

Although, this "thought" is more or less electrical signals in my brain, so the only thing that really exists (as far as that thought is concerned) is some electrical activity in my brain.

In that sense, perhaps we are not "really" intelligent beings at all. In fact, if you REALLY want to boil it down, we are nothing more than a chemical reaction.

Who knows. Maybe the only actual thing that physically exists is a single cell, something like a brain cell. It floats in a void of absolute nothingness and emptiness, and our "existence" is nothing more than an electrical signal in that cell. It doesn't even have to understand it. It just is.

And then we are not even a chemical reaction. We simply become a "thought" induced by a chemical or electrical reaction.

But... even if that were the case. That single cell still exists.

Wether existence existed before that cell, or they both popped into existence at the same time... Well... We might never know. At least I probably wont.

The point is, it could not exist without the existence of existence.


I know I know. If NOTHING can exist withough existence, then how can "existence" exist without existence? hmmmm????

THAT is why I think that it is just possible that existence is infinite.

What would happen if absolutely nothing existed, not even existence its self, and then all of the sudden BAM it did exist?

Maybe a giant explosion... hmmm kind of like a Big Bang!

At the end of the day, the fact that I am typing this message right now , and you are reading it, means that existence already exists. And wether I am really a physical being, or just a thought coming from an electrical signal in a single brain cell. Something exists.
 
  • #47
56
0
I was with you up to a point Sintwar, but I'm afraid all this makes no sense to me. "Nothing can exist without existence" is a tautology and essentially meaningless. The "existence of existence" is similarly without meaning. And what does it mean to say "nothing exists"? Does it exist if it is nothing?

There is a world of difference between the perception of something existing and the thing existing. One is a thought, incorporeal, a set of chemical reactions which we perceive as a mental image or idea. As such it is a thing itself, a thought, that has existence. Very little to do with the thing itself existing.

Usually when one debates whether a god exists, there is little doubt among the participants that we mean external existence in a real sense. There is no debate as to whether the idea of god exists.

I guess what I'm saying is, maybe you have a very good idea or explanation in there somewhere but it's not coming across, at least to me, very well. But that's just me, and I think it's why I find the subject of philosophy so uninteresting.
 
  • #48
857
2
I only read the first post, but heres what i thought:

Replace the word 'existence' with 'God' and u can start all over again.
 
  • #49
857
2
Sintwar said:
Although I do know that "something from nothing" is possible, and has already been proven it happens.
Im afraid this has never been witnessed, let alone proven.

The idea that everything came from nothing, is just as fantastical as that of a God. Actually, it makes even less sense...
 
  • #50
1,029
1
Sintwar said:
To make it very simple. I read this in a book "The Atheists debators handbook", so most of these are not my words.
If you were to take me to court, claiming that I am in breech of a contract, you will need to produce this so called contract in order to prove that I did in fact sign it and that I am breeching that contract. If you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this contract exists, and it has my signiture, your claim is worthless.

You can convince anyone you want that this contract exists. Hell you could convince the whole world. But without that contract, you have no case.
I'm not sure I understand this response. Are you saying that the "atheists debators handbook" advocates making statements without having to defend them?
 

Related Threads on God is redundant. A Theory

  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
49
Views
11K
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
8K
Top